Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Veterans care (Score 1) 52

All on her own?

I'm relatively confident she cast her vote in the Senate by herself

OK, admittedly I could have phrased that better. It was, however, fun to watch you go off the deep end on it.

What I was after with "all on her own" was that she was not the only Senator to vote for it. Ultimately it was such a lopsided vote that no single vote was worth much of anything as your party beat all the sense out of everyone and forced them to vote in support of a war that was sold on a giant stack of lies and bullshit.

We still don't have all the information on the documents. Read the rest of the releases. These documents are now listed "classified" but it is not clear what their status was at the time.

Way too prosaic.

That's right, it's a democrat here, so they are automatically guilty. No need to examine facts, you already know they are guilty. Fuck the investigation, right? Obviously Hillary's email server existed so she could more rapidly catalyze the socialist anarchist atheist Islamist communist illuminati reptoid takeover of the world, right?

Comment Re:Veterans care (Score 1) 52

You seem to have problems naming people.

For the first, pick any candidate running for the GOP nomination for POTUS and they have likely committed that exact untruthful deed. For the second, look at any elected - and many unelected - members of the Bush Jr administration.

For the record, am I supposed to un-remember that Senator Clinton voted for that fiasco?

All on her own? Did she propose it, and sell it to us based on a giant pile of lies as well? I would prefer her to have had enough spine to vote against it, but hardly anyone else did due to the fact that your side had the mega-spin machine in such high gear that you scared a huge portion of congress to vote for it under the threat of being run out of DC as "un-American". Some may recall that the only senator facing re-election in 2002 who voted against it mysteriously fell out of the sky just a few weeks prior to election day.

You know, the person with classified documents on her unauthorized personal email server?

We still don't have all the information on the documents. Read the rest of the releases. These documents are now listed "classified" but it is not clear what their status was at the time. If you are so highly knowledgeable on military intelligence you should understand how this works.

Comment Re:huh? (Score 1) 103

Your denial of the historical truths as laid out in The Black Book of Communism are as lousy as the doctrine itself.

I do not deny that the deaths and other bad things happened. I merely point out that they did not happen because of Communism itself, they happened because of the leaders that rose to the top of those Communist-in-name-only republics. Communism did not cause those things to happen any more so than a corporate republic such as ours could have prevented them; indeed look at how many people we have killed in the name of profit in recent times.

If you're going to embrace Hell's politics, Communism, I guess I shouldn't expect any sort of honesty about it.

So Satan wants equality, and The Lord wants disparity? I never knew that. You read from a very different book, there.

Comment Re:"Giant steps are what you take. . ." (Score 1) 7

How you got from "looking at an issue" to "opted to propose" is mysterious.

That is less of a leap than the ones you take when shouting your favorite conspiracies to the world and why they should lead to extralegal removal (or more) of particular politicians.

Nonetheless, no reasonable person would consider a wall on the US-Canada border. It simply makes no sense from any angle. We have been patrolling it with drones for some time to supplement the people who survey it. And how could one possibly wall the Great Lakes?

Although as we saw before, The Kevlar Kandidate only Knows of 30 States so perhaps that makes his wall simpler?

Comment Re:Veterans care (Score 1) 52

More partisanship from you, there. You would accept "contradictory public utterances" from people with the correct consonants after their name.

Name them. Name. One. Go ahead

I'll go one better and give you two for the price of one (or none).

First, all the complete bullshit from your party about "replacing" the ACA. Every proposal we have seen so far has been at least a 90% facsimile of the ACA. Your guys are - as we already knew - just jealous that their own names aren't on it.

Second, the bullshit that lead us into the war in Iraq. The overwhelming majority of what was used to sell the war to us was complete fabrication. Remember Cheney's claim of how quickly it would be over, and how it was contradicted by reality? Remember how we were promised we would be "greeted as liberators"?

Isn't that what the FBI investigation is showing?

The investigation isn't over yet. It also hasn't commented on the timelines of those two emails. You realize that a lot of what goes through as classified information becomes de-classified some time later, right? Just because an email went through with information that was at one time classified does not mean it went through while it was still classified.

Comment Re:huh? (Score 1) 103

You're doing noble people grave harm by juxtaposing them with Joseph Stalin,

I have never in my life encountered someone who hold their ignorance to be a flag to be flown proudly in the way that you do. Stalin was not a Communist, period. He was a cunning politician, but his interest was in power and not in the furthering of Communism. Even his predecessors - who were marginal Communists - warned against allowing his rise to power.

If you knew anything about Communism you would know that.

who is a proper existential example of what Communism inevitably becomes

That is nothing short of an outright lie. There is nothing inherent to Communism that brings about the likes of Stalin.

Keep pluckin' that chicken.

You don't know shit about Communism. You have repeatedly refused to undertake any serious study of it. You continue to proudly display your ignorance. What is it that you are trying to accuse me of, being knowledgeable?

Comment Re:huh? (Score 1) 103

Not that you would be able to understand their ways.

I daresay I'd have a 95+% overlap with their thinking. Because I'm substantially from the Anabaptist tradition myself. All of which makes your assertion funnier than the bulk of your twaddle.

It would appear that similarly to how you have on other documents claimed understanding without reading, you don't seem to have a grasp on what the Hutterites are actually about. Perhaps if you think they are kindred souls, though, you might accidentally learn something about Communism by reading about them.

For example notice that while absolute pacifism is a big part of their lives, so is shared ownership of basically everything. They show the benefits of Communism when it is applied to small communities, without the ugliness that is inherent in all forms of government when they grow to larger sizes. More to the point, communal ownership and direction is a core belief to the Hutterites. You cannot be a Hutterite in a capitalist system.

Comment Re:Veterans care (Score 1) 52

If only you had a shred of credibility to back it up... or even a single fact. You have yet to present one actual fact to support your allegations. Not. One. Actual. Fact.

Wait, so, it's MY task to present every atom of proof pursuant to Chappaquaiddick?

No. I never asked for all the proof. I would like to see at least one single fact supporting your claim, which so far you have not provided. Hence my statement of

Not. One. Actual. Fact

No, I think her contradictory public utterances are sufficient.

More partisanship from you, there. You would accept "contradictory public utterances" from people with the correct consonants after their name. But when they come from people with the cursed "D" after their name, they are justification for immediate extralegal removal from whatever post they might have or aspire to.

Show me an actual fact. You claimed earlier that classified information was mishandled. You have not given any facts to support that idea. You instead substitute your conspiracy of the week and insist that it is good enough.

you are carefully cherry-picking your way through the constitution to try to build support for a state of government that has never actually existed here

Can you re-iterate exactly what Constitutional points you think at issue here?

As usual, if you don't read it the first time - or first several times - I post it, why would I expect you to read it now? I'm not playing this game. You can go back and read when I posted it before or you can just stop asking for re-re-re-re-reposts.

Comment Re:Veterans care (Score 1) 52

You have no evidence even though you are calling her guilty.

Her Majesty's behavior screams: "We sooooo guilty,

That is some fascinating psychoanalysis, there. If only you had a shred of credibility to back it up... or even a single fact. You have yet to present one actual fact to support your allegations. Not. One. Actual. Fact.

Not when you cherry-pick your way through them and pretend that your interpretation of them is The Only True Reading.

No, if you step back and admire Her Majesty's mosaic of mendacity, you've got to admit: there goes one truth-free piece of work.

First of all, I was talking about how you are carefully cherry-picking your way through the constitution to try to build support for a state of government that has never actually existed here. The Founders realized that their ideals for the time would not be the ideals for all time, and that things would change in the future. Hell it would not be an irrational approach to their writing to say that they expected full rewrites to occur from time to time.

Second, what the fuck are you talking about? I'm used to seeing you change topics as a defensive strategy around here, but that is quite the shift. You didn't just shift from red to green, you shot all the way into far-UV.

I can only suppose that you're a minion of the Clinton Machine, based on your complete lack of perspective.

No, though your lack of perspective is showing when you level that claim.

Comment Re:huh? (Score 1) 103

You don't need one single party for it to be partisan.

Aw, c'mon. That's akin to saying "All Democrats are godless Commies", which I don't begin to think true.

Why not? You insist on not understanding Communism, which apparently gives you free reign to apply your lack of understanding of it to whatever you want.

Or do you mean that to you some of them are theological Commies? Perhaps extra-scary Muslim Commies?

Interestingly enough I recently came across legitimate communists in my travels. Not that you would be able to understand their ways...

Comment Re:I'm not sure this is the right response (Score 1) 210

It is generally (at the very least) very difficult to prove a negative.

WTF? You claimed that they 'may' have been under investigation, not I. I discounted that and you say I have to prove your lie is wrong?

Hopefully you wake up this morning with your underwear un-knotted so we can have an actual discussion on this matter.

To comply with the latest version of your request, I would have to be able to show now that there was an investigation started into AM before the hack was known. However, if there is an investigation underway, we generally won't know until charges are brought. That is the way many criminal investigations go; you don't want the accused to start running around destroying evidence.

However you are so full of piss and vinegar over the matter I expect that even if charges were announced tomorrow you would still be unsatisfied.

Do you see the massive difference there? Oh, I'm sure you had it before and were either defending your poor use if language or attempting to insist you were fine to assert my opinion for me.

I am not asserting an opinion for you. The fact of the matter is that Schwartz made a stupid choice and broke the law. You might happen to think highly of him regardless of it, and you are entitled to that opinion if you wish you hold it. Regardless he broke the law and deserved to face consequences - including a trial. I'm not telling you what to think about him. I'm sorry that you struggle so greatly to comprehend the written word here and that you find it justification to attack me.

Comment Re:huh? (Score 1) 103

it is an argument presented by "leftists" and that only "leftists" use it. Hence it is a partisan "fallacy".

If there were a "leftist" party, then what you say would be true.

You don't need one single party for it to be partisan. You have shown that you view everyone who is not part of your party as being "leftist", which makes the allegation partisan as you make it impossible for this "fallacy" to apply to anyone who is of your party.

in the face of the current godless Commie sodomite infestation

The pride you take in your ignorance is staggering.

But that wouldn't necessarily be distinct from the GOP, which seems strangely comfortable with preserving Obama's lousy ideas.

If you are referring to HIIBA 2010 - and the fact that the GOP candidates all want to "repeal" it and then "replace" it with the same crappy bill with a different last name affiliated with it - you are getting close to reality but you have the chain of events backwards. The current bill - as we acknowledged earlier - is indeed the product of congress caving to the demands of the insurance industry and the Heritage Foundation. Why would any rational person expect that the republicans, having already gotten the bill they wanted through to law, would call for anything different in a "replacement" beyond the name on the bill?

And if you don't like my pointing out the obvious, then go read the book I cited back in July. You claim to be in favor of reading books, right?

This login session: $13.76, but for you $11.88.

Working...